24 April 2016, Volume 53, Number 4We Feel a Change Comin’ .docx

24 April 2016, Volume 53, Number 4
We Feel a Change Comin’ On:
I-O’s Rôle in the Future of Work
We in I-O are fairly sporting when it comes to discussing the
ambiguities and contradictions and inconsistencies associated
with the nuances of human behavior in the workplace—cheers
to us. We seem to falter, though, when it comes to talking
about the future: the future of work, of organizations, of SIOP,
of our own jobs. Our narratives become jumbled; we start
talking past each other, focusing on different criteria, making
different assumptions. Our background in science doesn’t
prepare us to have meaningful conversations about specula-
tion, prophecy, conjecture. This may be a point to our credit
on most days, but it will not serve us if and when the world
changes and we are caught off guard and unprepared.
Hence the focus for this edition of the I-Opener: Where is the
world of work going and where will we fit in it? The discussion
below is imperfect: It represents a single narrative among
many possible narratives, a few perspectives among a myriad,
many questionable assumptions. We simplified and filtered
the prophecies; we asked leading and targeted questions; we,
to some extent, knew what we were going to write before we
began interviewing experts.
But this serves our purpose adequately. We want to start
SIOP’s membership down this path of thought—and the more
varied the conclusions at which members arrive, the better.
We want to reveal the changes that are being anticipated.
Instead of simply wondering at the forward march of technol-

ogy, let’s start thinking (and talking) about what this means for
us, not in the narrow sense of job security and personal leisure
time but in terms of how I-O psychology will adapt to continue
to serve humanity in the coming decades.1
What: The (Possible) Brave New World
A continual influx of new technology has become rather com-
monplace these days, and most of us are comfortable with
and even dependent upon the rôle technology has assumed
in our lives, but what about its rôle in our work? How and to
Olivia Reinecke
Louisiana Tech University
Steven Toaddy
Louisiana Tech University
25 The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist
what extent is technology improving the
human work experience? How and at what
point will technology become dangerous?
Dangerous to whom or to what? Questions
such as these are at the forefront of our
field’s development, and the answers will
transform I-O psychology as we know it.
Upon reading the preceding paragraph,
one is likely to consider one of a few cat-
egories of technologies: telework, collab-
orative cloud services, and automation.
“Telework” captures a variety of (in this

case electronic) technologies that allow
humans to better coördinate with each
other in their work activities—and has sib-
lings in the cloud in the form of electronic
workflow-management suites, collabora-
tive-document services, shared calendars.
These technologies have their benefits and
pitfalls and are—especially telework—the
subject of scrutiny by our field.2 Important,
but not the focus of this column at pres-
ent; let’s look at automation instead.
Sigh. This, uh, this is not an easy topic
to tackle. The narrative that has grown
around it has elements of Luddism and
postscarcity economics and (perhaps not
unfounded) fear tied up in it. Again, we’re
capturing the path of a single flake in a
blizzard; a Google search will get the inter-
ested reader into more discussion on this
topic than can be reasonably taken in. Our
first taste was a short YouTube documen-
tary by C.G.P. Grey (2014) entitled Humans
Need Not Apply.3 As its title suggests, the
documentary asserts that automation
poses a very real threat to the need for hu-
man work. According to Grey (2014), while
automation may not pose an immediate
risk to all humans, it will occur “in large
enough numbers and soon enough that
it’s going to be a huge problem if we’re not
prepared. And we’re not prepared.”
Humans Need Not Apply certainly sends a
powerful message, but it left us with more

questions than answers. Just how unpre-
pared are we? If automation really is a
threat to human work, what exactly are we
up against? More deeply, is “human work”
something that we should defend or is it
a necessary evil that we have tolerated to
this point? Automation has already demon-
strated its power to significantly alter how
(or if) humans work—look to Google’s
self-driving car4 and IBM’s Watson5—so this
is not just some fanciful far-future discus-
sion. As I-O psychologists, we need start
considering how it might transform our
field, both ideologically and in practice.
In an attempt to cut through the overabun-
dance of automation information available
online, we reached out to Marshall Brain.
Best known as the founder of How Stuff
Works and more recently for his Robotic
Nation essay series, Brain is well versed in
the development of artificial intelligence,
what he calls the “second intelligent spe-
cies.” Echoing Humans Need Not Apply,
Brain explained that, although humans
are currently the only “math-wielding,
language-using, space-traveling intelligenc-
es,” we won’t be alone for much longer.
The second intelligent species is well on
its way and is no longer merely a figment
of a mad scientist’s futuristic imagination.
IBM’s Watson is an example of this type of
species, and it is just a primitive form. So
what’s the big deal? This second intelligent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/
http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/
http://www.howstuffworks.com/
http://www.howstuffworks.com/
http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
species has (and will continue to develop)
the capacity to compete with the human
species, especially in the context of work;
and in Brain’s view, “humans, generally
speaking, are not up to the challenge.”
After this conversation, we were no longer
interested in debating whether the pre-
dictions offered by Grey (2014) and Brain
were plausible. For the sake of the arti-
cle’s overarching purpose—a pursuit of
answers—we made a deliberate decision
to assume that the “threat” automation
poses to human employment is real. This
assumption will be implicit through the
remainder of this article.
Why: The (Debatable) Broader
Purpose of I-O Psychology
So, automation is coming. Now what? We
learned from Grey (2014) and Brain that
automation could be bad news for the em-
ployed population, but would it really be
so awful if no one had to work? According

to Dr. David L. Blustein, who specializes in
the psychology of working and vocational
psychology, yes!
Blustein was quick to point out that, so
far, technology has largely enhanced our
work lives; our Skype interview, for exam-
ple, wouldn’t have been possible without
technology. But when technology replaces
the need for human work, the human
species is in trouble. Why? Simply put,
humans need work. As Blustein explained,
work satisfies our “fundamental need to
contribute, collaborate, and create.” What
happens when we can’t satisfy this need?
Recent meta-analytic findings indicate
that those who are unemployed, especial-
ly long-term, experience lower levels of
mental health (i.e., higher levels of anxiety,
depression, distress, and psychosomatic
symptoms and lower levels of subjective
well-being and self-esteem). Even worse,
these negative effects have remained
stable for the last 30 years, suggesting
that society has yet to adapt to high rates
of unemployment (Paul & Moser, 20096).
In Blustein’s words, “Work is essential for
mental health. Work is essential for the
welfare of our communities.”
If we take into account Blustein’s perspec-
tive (and the extensive research upon
which it is founded) and if we make the as-
sumption that we are in this game for the
good7 of humanity, it becomes clear that

we must be mindful of how we integrate
technology into our work. Blustein em-
phasized the need “to develop an active,
engaged, compassionate approach to the
discussion of the future of work in peo-
ples’ lives.” Reacting to new technology as
it comes (i.e., purchasing the next big thing
because it’s more efficient and cool) with
no consideration for its impact on hu-
man work—and subsequently on human
well-being—will hurt us in the end. As we
continue to explore this topic, the need for
our species to take a proactive approach
regarding automation in the workplace
becomes more and more apparent.
Ah, but this is all the pedestrian discussion
that you’ve likely heard before: Beware
technology, oh no the robots are com-
ing, hide your kids, hide your jobs. But of
course we are not pedestrian; we are SIOP.
We have a job to do. So given that we sel-
27 The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist
dom pull the strings regarding the integra-
tion of technology into the world of work,
the policies that our governments may
put into place to protect work8 and the
social-media campaigns intended to take
down the artificial intelligences are not for
us. Instead, let’s start with our assumption
about the onward march of automation
and simulate where that will take us in I-O

in the next, oh, quarter century or so.
How: The (Possible) Road Ahead
With much gratitude to Brain and Blustein,
we turned our eye inward. What will we
be doing in the early-middle 21st century?
It’s possible that our major I-side tools
such as WA, selection, and training may
become obsolete. First, bots9 will be able
to perform these tasks better and faster
than I-Os. Second, when the second intel-
ligent species is doing most of the work,
there won’t be a need for anyone to select
and train them. They will build and train
themselves, not as a species but as individ-
uals, as they already do.10 In the short run,
we will be providing services in a different
context; in the long run, we may be serving
a humanity with a great deal of time on its
hands. So how, precisely, will I-O operate?
We interviewed Dr. Anthony S. Boyce
(consultant and leader of Research
and Innovation for the Assessment and
Leadership-Development practice at Aon
Hewitt) with precisely these questions in
mind. We framed our discussion around
two points in time: within the next fiv5e to
10 years, and 15 to 20 years in the future.
Boyce thinks we’ll still be hiring humans in
the next 5 to 10 years but that our selec-
tion tools will look very different. Rather
than revolving around assessment alone,
Boyce envisions selection as a more inte-

grated process, pulling in big data from
applicants’ social media activity and other
online behavior (with the aid of—you
guessed it—our digital progeny).
With these big data, organizations may
become less concerned about exactly
what is being measured and why and may
become more concerned with predictive
power. If computer scientists can create
algorithms that predict performance with-
out causing adverse impact but also with-
out theory or explanation behind them
(i.e., a “black box” selection instrument),
I-Os may fall behind. Boyce thinks I-Os can
work backwards though, figuring out what
these black boxes are measuring and how
we can apply these constructs to onboard-
ing, professional development, and other
postselection areas. While our “I-side”
tool belts may become less relevant in
the next 5 to 10 years, Boyce thinks our
“O-side” skills will remain vital to organiza-
tional success. People will still be making
decisions and leading teams, and maybe
we have a thing or two to teach bots
about running successful organizations11.
In the more distant future, where perhaps
human work is no longer needed, Boyce
suggests that I-O psychology could be lev-
eraged to aid humans in finding the leisure
activities that will be most fulfilling (Brain
and Blustein spoke to this as well); rather
than advising on job satisfaction and work
engagement, I-O psychologists could use

their expertise to promote life satisfaction
and engagement with leisure activities.12
Who: Our (Debatable) Responsibility
Boyce weaves a compelling narrative for
the future of our field. We don’t know
how accurate it is (though some of us will
find out, I suppose), but it certainly paves
the way for what is next for each of us
individually. We’re not asking you to fight
anything or anyone13. We are asking you to
do exactly 3 things:
• Develop your own model in your head
of where the world of work is going
in the next 5, 10, 20 years (Internet is
probably your best resource here).
• Simulate how you think I-O is going to
fit into that model (SIOP is probably
your best resource here; work with
others, discuss, collaborate).
• Adjust your skillset to proactively
accommodate the changing respon-
sibilities that you’ll experience in the
future (attend and generate content
for SIOP’s annual conference, take
classes, practice).

There is a wave coming. We can probably
dig in, let it wash over us and move on
without us, and leave us obsolete. We can
let it catch us unawares and dash us on
the rocks. Instead, let’s make sure we’re
ready to ride it.
Notes
1 This may not be the responsibility of I-O
psychology. We know. Calm down.
2 And others, see http://www.siop.org/tip/
july14/pdfs/opener.pdf for a discussion of
telework.
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-
S557XQU
4 http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/
5 http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/
ibmwatson/
6 Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009).
Unemployment impairs mental health:
Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 74(3), 264-282. doi:10.1016/j.
jvb.2009.01.001; there’s a rich theoretically
and empirically grounded conversation going
on regarding boundary conditions on the
impact of unemployment on well-being—
SES, time, market sector, and so on—and
we encourage the interested reader to
refer to this work for an introduction to this
conversation.

7 Whatever the hell “good” means.
8 That feels odd to type. It’s like writing “save
the smallpox” or “end conservation.”
9 The human factors/ergonomics people
have much more to say about this, but as
you envision the future, try not to think of
automation in terms of bipedal ambulatory
robots. Think of automated factories and
invisible algorithms. Autopilots don’t look
like they did in the movie Airplane and
neither will the drivers of autonomous
vehicles. Of course, there are bipedal
ambulatory robots, but they are somewhat
beside the point here. (shrug)
10 Here we’re referring to machine learning.
Have fun with that search string.
11 Stop it. No, of course bots will not be sitting
in boardrooms in business attire. Bots are
cool. They’re going to be in casual clothing.
12 In short, things may get much more huggy
feely and O-side people, such as the sec-
ond author, will finally win our shadow war
against our I-side oppressors.
13 What he said: http://news.discovery.com/
tech/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-computer-
overlords.htm

The Values of Industrial-Organizational Psychology:
Who Are We?1
Joel Lefkowitz
Baruch College, CUNY
What are the values of industrial-organizational (I-O)
psychology as a
profession? According to Katzell and Austin’s (1992) history
of the field, this
has never been a major topic of concern for us and there do not
appear to be
any explicit published statements of our values. In all fairness,
though, the
absence of guiding principles does not seem to be unique to I-O
psychology:
“Why is it that experts primarily teach techniques to young
professionals,
while ignoring the values that have sustained the quests of so
many creative
geniuses?” (Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi & Damon, 2001).
This is an important matter because “it is the profession’s core
values that
both anchor and trigger the virtues and duties expected of its
members”
(Gellerman, Frankel, & Ladenson, 1990). Thus, values underlie
all ethical
reasoning. A profession’s values are reflected in what it
considers important,
the goals and objectives it tries to achieve, its reactions to
sociopolitical

events that impact it (e.g., civil rights legislation; downsizing),
the choices
made by its members such as where and for whom they work,
what they work
on and study, and the criteria by which they evaluate their work.
Perhaps the closest we get to a statement of values is our
frequent vener-
ation of “the scientist–practitioner model” (S–P). However, I-O
psychology
has never articulated a conception of the nature of the S–P
model and exact-
ly how it should direct our activities—as has been done
explicitly in clinical,
counseling, and school psychology (Baker & Benjamin, 2000;
Raimy, 1950).
And the S–P model has also been characterized as “an
incomplete model of
values” for I-O psychology (Lefkowitz, 1990, 2003) because it
fails to
encompass the moral perspective represented by the
humanistic/beneficent
tradition in psychology (Kimble, 1984). Almost from its
inception, psychol-
ogy in America has been comprised of both the scientific study
of behavior as
well as the utilitarian application of the knowledge gained for
human better-
ment. Even when employed in an organizational or institutional
setting,
school, counseling, and clinical psychologists—by dint of the
training, social-
ization, and cultural norms that characterize those
subdisciplines—assume
their primary responsibility to be to the student, client, or
patient served, not

the organization. Can the same be said for I-O psychology?
What moral
complications are introduced if the organization is defined as
the client?
The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 13
1 This essay is based in part on the author’s presentation as
chair of a panel at the SIOP confer-
ence, April 2, 2004, Chicago, IL, and talks to the Metropolitan
New York Association for
Applied Psychology (Metro), Dec. 1, 2004, and the Personnel
Testing Council of Metropolitan
Washington DC, July 13, 2005. The contributions of the other
SIOP panelists, Jerald Green-
burg, Richard Jeanneret, Rodney Lowman, William H. Macey,
and Lois Tetrick, are
greatly appreciated, as are those of Charles Scherbaum. They
are not, however, responsible
for the content and opinions expressed in this paper.
The humanistic tradition is reflected in the preamble to the APA
(2002)
code of ethics, which indicates that “Psychologists are
committed…to
improve the condition of individuals, organizations, and
society.” That objec-
tive is commensurate with the common understanding of what it
means for
an occupation to have achieved the status of a “profession”
(Haber, 1991).
Professions acknowledge responsibility not only to their clients
but to socie-
ty at large. In that vein, Donaldson (1982) has voiced the

following concerns:
In addition to the traditional categories of professions, modern
corporate
life creates new ones…. Many of the new “technocratic”
professions,
however, lack a key characteristic associated with traditional
professions.
With the professions of medicine, law, or teaching, we associate
a spirit
of altruism or service; but the new technocratic professions
often lack this
characteristic and thus raise special problems of moral
responsibility….
The standards of the new professional do not explicitly include
moral
standards, in part because his or her profession does not
recognize an
altruistic element in its overall goals. The old professions have
frequent-
ly failed to apply the moral standards articulated in statements
of their
professional goals; but the new professions fail, it seems,
because they do
not even attempt to articulate moral standards. (p. 113)
Accordingly, one might question whether I-O psychology is
more akin to
the minimally moral new “technocratic professions” than to the
traditional pro-
fessions in which responsibility and service to society at large
is a major value
component. This admittedly leads us into murky waters: To
“improve the con-
dition of individuals, organizations, and society” necessarily
entails some-

times-contested values choices concerning what constitutes
“improvement.”
Some psychologists, including many in I-O psychology, try to
avoid mak-
ing moral choices by taking refuge in the advocacy of “value-
free” science and
practice. As observed by Greenberg (2004), I-O psychologists
have generally
chosen to stand mute on social issues on the assumption that “to
be credible sci-
entists, we have learned, we must check our values at the door.”
But might
“value-free I-O psychology” actually work to the detriment of
using psycholo-
gy for human betterment? Might a “moral compass” be
necessary in order to
direct the ends toward which social and behavioral science
should be applied?
Even more to the point, it can be argued that the putatively
“value-free”
aspect of I-O psychology is not in fact neutral or benign but
serves to mask the
influence of a contradictory value system—one prizing
productivity, prof-
itability, and shareholder value above all else. It is that value
system—and not
a humane or beneficent one—that comprises the professional
practice domain
of the scientist–practitioner model in I-O psychology. That is
why it’s an inad-
equate professional model for I-O psychology. One might
accept the
18th–19th-century logical positivist paradigm of value-free
science as applied

to the natural sciences (although, cf. Kuhn, 1996; Popper, 1972;
Toulman,
14 October 2005 Volume 43 Number 2
1973). It is less tenable for social science, which has always
included the aim
of bettering the human condition—which entails making values
choices
regarding societal objectives (i.e., what constitutes “better”?).
It is less tenable,
still, for applied social science in which the pragmatic problems
of real social
systems define the object (and sometimes the methods) of study.
The value-
free assumption is clearly untenable when applied to
professional practice in I-
O psychology. Our applied research agendas, the problems on
which we work,
and the criteria by which our work is evaluated, are all set
largely by the goals
and objectives of the clients or employers for which we work
and reflect their
values and assumptions and those of the economic system in
general.
As stated by Macey (2004), “our clients expect that we will
support the
attainment of their goals.” Indeed, in all fields of applied
psychology, not just
in I-O, it tends to be true that “the practitioner does not choose
the issue to
examine, the client does” (Peterson, 1991). However, might
there be critical

differences between an individual psychotherapy patient, a
public elementary
school, or nonprofit mental health clinic as client, versus a
business corpora-
tion? If so, then maybe we should heed the warning of the
philosopher of sci-
ence, Alexander Rosenberg (1995):
A social science that sought to efface the moral dimension from
its
descriptions and explanations would simply serve the interests
of some
other moral conception. It would reflect values foreign to those
that ani-
mate our conception of ourselves (p. 205, emphasis added).
I believe that is in great measure exactly what we have allowed
to happen.
Miner (1992) probably speaks for a majority of us when he
warns that
“Humanistic values represent a problem for the field of
organizational psy-
chology because these features can conflict with the objectivity
required of a
science and because they can dilute a strong concern for
performance effec-
tiveness and productivity” (p. 293). A resolute focus on
performance effec-
tiveness and productivity may represent a defensible value
system, but it is cer-
tainly not objective, neutral, or scientific. Surely, the issue is
one of alterna-
tive—perhaps competing or even conflicting—values choices,
not the intru-
sion of humane concerns into a social system devoid of any
values preferences.

There are no explicit published expositions of our professional
values. But
just as we infer many aspects of people’s intrapsychic lives,
including their char-
acter, from their overt behavior and verbal statements, it may
similarly be possi-
ble to infer a profession’s values from its historical perspectives
and its contem-
poraneous actions and concerns, as well as from what it chooses
to ignore.
Putative Values Indicators
The following are some events, conditions or observations that I
think
have some evidentiary worth in inferring the values of I-O
psychology:
• Most I-O psychologists have been “managerially
oriented…motivat-
ed more by the interests of management than by concern for
employ-
ees” (Katzell & Austin, 1992, p. 810). This is reflected
dramatically
in the many writings of Elton Mayo who was very much
opposed to
democratic principles and viewed industrial unrest as indicating
work-
er irrationality not dissatisfaction with wages and working
conditions

(cf. O’Connor, 1999);
• Contemporaneously, there seem to be virtually no I-O
psychologists
working in or for labor unions, nor much if any I-O research
even
studying them qua organizations. Since the time when I-O
psycholo-
gists actively worked against unions (cf. Gordon & Burt, 1981;
Ham-
ner & Smith, 1978; Jacoby, 1986; Schriesheim, 1978; Stagner,
1981;
Zickar, 2001), our attitude has been one of neglect;
• Similarly, very few I-O psychologists have worked with,
studied, or tried
to benefit the conditions of nonprofit organizations,
“nontraditional”
(contingent, part-time, temporary, or contract) workers, the
working poor,
or the unemployed, et al. (Katzell & Austin, 1992; Lefkowitz,
2005);
• Perhaps the foremost fact of life in corporate America over the
past 25
years has been the wholesale dismissal of millions of employees
from
their jobs. It seems at least ironic, if not morally obtuse, that
during
that time I-O psychology has focused on employees’ emotional
attachment to the organization. Among the most dominant
topics in
I-O psychology have been how to select more conscientious
employ-
ees and how to increase their organizational commitment and
organi-

zational citizenship behaviors;
• Despite considerable evidence that much of this downsizing is
neither
economically necessary nor particularly effective (Cascio, 1993,
1995,
2002; Henry, 2002; McElroy, Morrow & Rude, 2001; Pfeffer,
1998;
Rousseau, 1995), little if any criticism of these actions that
cause such
widespread misery emanates from I-O psychologists. Instead,
our pri-
mary reactions have been to silently accept the upheaval and/or
active-
ly facilitate the process: “The key is to discourage long-term
career
planning” (Hall & Richter, 1990);
• Contrary to the practice in moral philosophy and other social
science
disciplines such as political economy that study the distributive
fair-
ness of our economic system, I-O psychology defines and
investigates
issues of [organizational] justice and (un)fairness merely as
psycho-
logical constructs—that is, perceived justice (e.g., James,
1993)—
never considering the moral, or even economic, justification for
real-
world organizational actions and their adverse consequences for
many;
• Moreover, even perceived justice has come to be defined by us
almost
exclusively in terms of procedural or interactional justice

(Schminke,
Ambrose & Noel, 1997)—thus further avoiding the moral issue
of
distributive justice;
• Among a list of 31 values statements rated by a sample of
SIOP prac-
titioners (n = 96), rated near the very bottom of the list were
human-
izing the work place, promoting autonomy and freedom,
promoting
democratic systems and policies, establishing systems based on
equality, and emphasizing individual welfare over the
organization
(Church & Burke, 1992);
• The three top-rated values of I-O psychologists in that survey
were
increasing effectiveness and efficiency, enhancing productivity,
and
promoting quality of products and services. The only
“scientific value”
included in the survey, applying and utilizing organizational
theory,
was rated #25. In other words, neither democratic/humanistic
concerns
nor scientific ones were rated by I-O psychologists as nearly as
impor-
tant as the corporation’s economic objectives;
• I could find only one mention in the literature of I-O
psychology con-

cerning the frequent occurrence of individual employees being
“wrongfully discharged” from their jobs. It is an educative
warning
from colleagues against such “troublesome practices”—because
they
may lead to costly litigation against the company not because
they are
disrespectful of employee rights, unethical, or simply wrong
(Dunford
& Devine, 1998).
What might one conclude from these indicators? They seem at
least to
suggest the following interrelated and tendentious questions:
Does I-O psychology emphasize concern for the
client/organization and
the organization’s perspective and interests even to the
detriment of concern
for individual employees and other stakeholders?
Is I-O psychology one of the so-called “technocratic
professions” that
lack a salient sense of moral responsibility to society at large?
Do profes-
sional psychologists who work in the private sector have an
obligation to
adopt a broader societal perspective?
Do we work for and benefit only those who are able to
remunerate us
handsomely?
Does I-O psychology lack a moral perspective for guidance,
along with
our scientific and economic perspectives? Should we have

one—that is,
should I-O psychology have an avowed social justice agenda
accompanying
its scientist–practitioner agenda?
Is the supposedly neutral scientific or values-free orientation we
claim as
a guiding principle simply a self-serving mask for corporate
business values
that drive our activities and provide the bases for personal
reward?
Does I-O psychology have a managerialist bias, even to the
point of anti-
labor partisanship? If so, why?
Should we be educating and training I-O psychologists to
incorporate val-
ues issues as part of their professional identities, including a
consideration of
the effects of our activities on the broader society?
Are we merely technocratic facilitators of corporate policies
and prac-
tices—providing HR systems and psychological rationalizations
for whole-
sale reductions in force and other aspects of “the new
organizational reality”
(e.g., pronouncements that most people no longer want secure,
full-time,
career-oriented jobs)?

Some Consequences
An individual with an inadequately developed sense of self is
likely to
also be lacking a clear conception of an ideal self and to
experience a high
level of ego threat. Perhaps the same is true for a profession.
Industrial-orga-
nizational psychology seems to be subject to recurring identity
threats. In the
1960s, our professional identity was threatened by the newly
emergent field
of organizational psychology or organizational behavior. The
threat was
resolved both by compartmentalization—of OB to business
schools—and by
introjection—the transformation of industrial psychology into I-
O psycholo-
gy. We defended the perceived 1970s identity challenge from
organization
development (OD) and the values-based process consultation
model by dis-
paraging its scientific status so that it, too, became
compartmentalized—in
separate professional schools and free-standing institutes such
as NTL. In
the 1980s and 1990s we were aroused by incipient incursions
into our corpo-
rate domain by clinical psychology colleagues—to which we
responded
adaptively, co-opting much of their potential contribution by
becoming
“executive coaches.”2
Currently, we seem to feel threatened by the activities of MBA
B-school

graduates/consultants, to which our responses so far have not
been particu-
larly constructive but simply cosmetic. In 2003, SIOP formally
considered
changing the name of the field. Without a clear rationale or
target identity
to be captured, it is not surprising that the effort lacked
consensus. More
recently, in these pages, we have been advised that “changing
our name is
irrelevant unless we market our profession, and we cannot carve
out a mar-
ket unless we have a clear understanding of our own identity”
(Gasser, But-
ler, Waddilove, & Tan, 2004, p. 15). Those authors surveyed
Fellows of SIOP
concerning how, in their opinions, I-O psychologists differ from
our B-
school-trained counterparts. The replies reflected the science
portion of the
scientist–practitioner model: that we have greater knowledge of
scientific
principles, research methodology and statistics, psychological
theories of
human behavior, and individual-level phenomena. Not
mentioned were any
ethical or values issues.
I could not agree more with the authors’ observation that
“improving the
human condition at work is the correct goal for us to pursue
given our back-
2 An activity that invites suspicion regarding possible ethical

violations: “Psychologists pro-
vide services...only within the boundaries of their competence,
based on their education,
training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or
professional experience” (APA, 2002,
Standard 2.01[a]).
ground as psychologists and the unique training we receive….
Surprisingly
often, taking the human element into consideration is neglected
in business”
(Gasser, et al., 2004, p. 18, 19). My view departs from theirs
insofar as their
notion of “taking the human element into consideration” is
limited to the
domain of psychological knowledge. The situation harks back
to earlier crit-
icisms of I-O psychologists as mere “servants of power”
(Baritz, 1960), to
which we reacted similarly that we simply needed to become a
more objec-
tive and “autonomous scientific discipline” (Wolf & Ozehosky,
1978, p. 181).
But the issue was then, and is now, one of morality and values,
not science.
A New Prospect
Notwithstanding how important is the recognition of
psychological attrib-
utes, what seems needed additionally is an expanded conception
of the field,
that is, an enlarged professional self-identity that encompasses
the humanis-

tic tradition in psychology (cf. Kimble, 1984) and the
professional service
model that ideally characterizes any profession (Haber, 1991).
That would
mean making more salient a normative, that is, moral,
perspective within the
field. There are three elements to any profession: its
theoretical and/or sci-
entific base; its technical expertise, as reflected by its
instrumental applica-
tions; and its moral or values perspective. The first is certainly
salient in I-O
psychology (Are the results statistically significant? At what
effect size? Is
the selection test valid?); the second is also well represented (Is
the program
cost-effective? Does the intervention increase productivity? Is
this the most
profitable alternative?). How often, however, have we engaged
in serious
deliberations with key organizational decision makers, asking
“Is this the
right thing to be doing?”
But would seeking the establishment of a normative dimension
for I-O
psychology be a hopelessly naïve, futile agenda? There are at
least five rea-
sons to reject that as cynicism. First, those who would dismiss
the objective
out of hand overlook the essential moral justification for the
institution of
business: the maximization of aggregate societal wealth and
well-being
(Danley, 1994). Although one should address the distributional
inequities of

the laissez-faire free market, a normative perspective is not
inherently incom-
patible with the institution. Second, despite the obvious high-
profile ethical
and legal transgressions of executives in recent years, it ought
to be acknowl-
edged that they are a small minority of corporate managers.
Not all managers
are entirely self-serving (whether on behalf of the organization
or for them-
selves, personally), and alternative perspectives abound (cf.
Cavanagh, 1984;
Donaldson, 1982; Epstein, 1999; H.B. Jones, 1995; T.M. Jones,
1995; Post,
Frederick, Lawrence, & Weber, 1996).
Third, there is evidence that I-O psychologists and other human
resource
managers can, indeed, fulfill a role of ethical leadership and
guidance in their
organizations even though the norm of professional service
“may place them
in direct conflict with their organization’s business goals”
(Wiley, 1998, p.
147). Fourth, many readers will not have failed to notice the
marked increase
in sessions concerned with ethical issues and professional
values at the annu-
al SIOP conference. Since 2003, Ethics and Values has been
offered as an
official category for conference submissions; these panel

discussions have
been well attended and lively. And this newsletter has
introduced a regular
column, The I-O Ethicist. Such consensual support may be
critical in pro-
moting the institutional values shift called for here. Last, and
perhaps most
important, there are ample indications of a potentially receptive
audience for
this proposed humanistic agenda. Many among us are studying
and working
to improve the human condition in areas such as worker safety
(e.g., Griffin
& Kabanoff, 2001), work stress (e.g., Lowman, 1993; Spector,
2002), job dis-
placement (London, 1996; Waldo, 2001), and many others, as
well as even
contributing services pro bono to worthy causes (e.g., Klein,
2001, Ryan,
1999). But the challenge I raise here is in questioning the
extent to which this
“good work” (Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi, & Damon, 2001) by
some I-O psy-
chologists has been conditioned by virtue of their education,
training, and
socialization as I-O psychologists. “Although it is obvious to
anyone who
cares to look that I-O psychology contains many generous and
caring indi-
viduals whose professional goals include human betterment,
there is room for
improving the extent to which the profession qua profession
reflects that sen-
sitivity” (Lefkowitz, 2003, p. 327).
(References have been omitted in order to save space. A full

reference list
of all citations can be obtained from the author at
[email protected]
Baruch.cuny.edu.)
Making the Transition:
Insight From Second-Year
Graduate Students
Chantale N. Wilson and Aaron J. Kraus
The University of Akron
As second-year graduate students, we have recently transitioned
from under-
graduate to graduate education and experienced the “surprise
and sensemaking”
(see classic article by M. Louis, 1980) this change brings.
Indeed, many TIP
readers may fondly remember their own feelings of excitement
and eagerness as
they moved from undergraduate to graduate status, and also the
apprehension,

uncertainty, and trepidation associated with the transition.
Regardless of whether
one has had several years since picking up a college textbook or
continues
directly from an undergraduate degree, entering a graduate
program involves a
range of adjustments, changes, and challenges. This installment
of TIP-TOPics
will elucidate what we and our peers found to be major issues
and changes a
first-year graduate student encounters, relate how the I-O
program at the Uni-
versity of Akron (UA) addresses these issues, and offer
suggestions to help facil-
itate a smooth and fluid transition process.1 We also address
how aspects of the
UA model might transfer to other academic and applied
situations.
Changing Emphasis in the Classroom
Life as a first-year graduate student is filled with new
relationships, experi-
ences, goals, and expectations. For example, as undergraduates
we have expe-

rienced up to 17 years of formal educational settings that
emphasize the impor-
tance of achieving high grades. Those grades have signaled our
learning of
knowledge and skills, our standing relative to other students,
and have, in part,
helped us to gain entry to graduate school. This emphasis is
soon to change,
however. Those graduates who will be most desired by
employers have profes-
sional expertise and ethics, research productivity, applied
experiences, teaching
prowess, and perhaps some degree of social acumen, but not
necessarily a 4.0
grade point average in their graduate studies. This shift in focus
changes the
graduate classroom dynamic, where mastering content and
comprehension now
predominate over memorization, and also makes engaging in
nonclassroom-
based learning activities critical. Potential employers will
forgive an A- in Per-
formance Appraisal if the applicant successfully designed a
performance

1 We thank the first- and second-year cohorts at UA for sharing
their perspectives and experi-
ences to help inform this edition of TIP-TOPics.
94 January 2012 Volume 49 Number 3
appraisal system during an internship, or a B+ in Training if the
applicant pub-
lished a new model for facilitating behavioral change in an
organizational set-
ting. Grades and classroom performance are only one
component of graduate
training, which also emphasizes research, applied experience,
and teaching.
The transition from undergraduate to graduate education also
creates a
new interpersonal dynamic with peers. Sharing classes with an
intimate
group of similar high-achieving individuals can cultivate a
sense of motiva-
tion and enthusiasm but also may lead to comparisons of ability
and feelings
of competition when a graduate student defines his or her goals
primarily in

terms of relative performance. The resulting emotions and
comparisons can
be detrimental to one’s self-efficacy and may lead to hesitation
in asking for
help when needed. Yet, such challenges can also stimulate
critical thinking,
innovation, and higher levels of learning when one’s peers
demonstrate that
high standards are achievable. When it comes to setting goals
for future suc-
cess in graduate school and beyond, a learning-goal orientation
places indi-
viduals on a better path for success with a more optimistic and
persisting atti-
tude than a performance-goal orientation (VandeWalle, 1996;
VandeWalle,
Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999). Individuals with learning-goal
orientations
strive to develop and become accomplished in and generalize
new skills to
different situations, whereas performance-goal oriented
individuals focus on
displaying competence to others by seeking positive, and
avoiding negative,

feedback about an outcome. Individuals with a strong learning-
goal orienta-
tion are better at mitigating negative emotions associated with
goal setting
and can respond more adaptively to adverse events than
performance-orient-
ed individuals (Cron, Slocum, VandeWalle, & Fu, 2005). To
promote learn-
ing-goal orientation in graduate students, UA embraces a model
of collabo-
ration. We feel reducing competition encourages a learning-goal
orientation
among graduate students; therefore, sharing diverse knowledge,
skills, and
perspectives amongst one another helps develop well-rounded I-
O scien-
tist/practitioners who can adapt to different environments.
Expectations of Graduate Students
Graduate students are held to high standards, and rightfully so.
Professors
and advisors expect graduate students to develop an extensive
set of knowl-
edge, skills, and abilities, regardless of their previous
backgrounds. At times,

acquiring these expected competencies will seem like a
challenge, but suc-
cessful graduate students will consider this an opportunity not
only to learn
specific skills but also to acquire the metaskill of learning
independently. The
ability to learn independently and continue to improve skills is
critical for
both scientist and practitioners of I-O psychology, so
developing this capac-
ity early in graduate school contributes to success in graduate
school and later
professional development.
Explaining Your “Profession” to Others
Parents, friends, acquaintances, and others usually understand
the nature
of one’s undergraduate pursuits and interests, but graduate
students soon find
it is more challenging to describe the purpose and scope of
graduate school

and the field of I-O psychology to others. In a previous TIP-
TOPics article,
Thoroughgood (2010) argues the importance of developing and
mastering a
“2-minute elevator speech,” as well as strategies to break down
communica-
tion barriers faced when describing the highly specialized field
of I-O psy-
chology. Beyond the task of explaining what I-O psychology is,
one may also
need to explain to college friends who have now entered the
working world
that graduate school is, in fact, a job! Graduate students may
not be able to
share stories of a “9 to 5” day or earning a sizeable paycheck
with old high
school or college friends, and this disconnect may create
unsettling feelings
and reemphasize the need for that impressive “2-minute elevator
speech.”
When faced with the disconnect between our own graduate
student expe-
riences and that of our peers who have already entered the
working world,

with its increase in dollars and status, it is helpful to remember
that one day
we too will enter the professional world. Furthermore, we will
have excellent
training that allows us to have a real impact on a continuously
evolving work-
force facing challenging problems that affect people’s lives as
well as nation-
al and international economies. We hope the individually
targeted thoughts
and strategies just presented are helpful to other graduate
students making the
transition from being undergraduates. In the next section we
describe poten-
tial types of support that are more collective and
institutionalized.
How Akron Smoothes the Transition Process
The process of self-discovery and identifying one’s purpose and
goals as
a graduate student is facilitated by the autonomous nature of a
graduate pro-
gram. Graduate programs embrace students who are proactive,
opportunistic,
and highly ambitious. The most successful graduate students

surpass the
basic requirements for coursework and seize additional
opportunities. At UA,
graduate students are encouraged to find unique and relevant
opportunities to
gain knowledge and experience beyond the classroom. Those
opportunities
range from applied projects coordinated through the
department’s in-house
consulting center (the Center for Organizational Research, or
COR), devel-
oping research proposals from class term papers into
publishable studies,
interning at companies in the greater Akron/Cleveland area, and
even volun-
teering I-O consulting services.
Many of these practical skills exercised externally originate in
the class-
room. UA’s collaborative model stresses cooperation and
teamwork through
the assignment of multiple group projects, the implementation
of study
groups for quantitative methods courses, and engagement in
applied team

projects. After all, a supportive, team-based workforce can
increase both pro-
ductivity and satisfaction (Campion & Higgs, 1995).
Consequently, frequent
collaboration is visible throughout UA’s I-O psychology
department. Group
projects are required throughout the curriculum. Dr. Dennis
Doverspike’s
class on personnel selection is no exception. As part of the
course require-
ments, student teams develop requests for proposals, conduct
adverse impact
analyses, and create mock selection systems. These activities
provide practi-
cal experience and help produce graduates who are professional,
adaptive,
and astute scientist/practitioners. UA’s culture embraces a
supportive and col-
laborative nature, consistent with findings that supportive teams
and organi-
zations tend to have higher levels of creativity and satisfaction

(e.g., Pirola-
Merlo & Mann, 2004).
UA helps to ease the transition of first-year graduate students
through a
socialization process congruent with the department culture.
The I-O psychol-
ogy program is cohesive and supportive, recognizing the
challenges faced by
first-year graduate students and endeavoring to reduce them.
Students are
encouraged to work through issues and adversity together, both
as a cohort and
an entire program. Relationships developed among first-year
students, men-
tors, officemates, and faculty members provide incoming
students with both
academic and social guidance. These relationships often lead to
collaboration
on research teams, applied experiences, and extracurricular
activities. Further-
more, the close-knit culture encourages an “open-door policy”
in which stu-
dents feel comfortable walking into a fellow student or faculty
member’s

office to freely discuss any issues or concerns they may be
having.
As an example of actions taken to build student–faculty
relationships, Dr.
Andrea Snell refers to UA graduate students as “junior faculty
members” and
treats them as such. Another way that UA helps forge faculty–
student rela-
tionship bonds is by sponsoring joint informal activities that
take place outside
of the department such as potluck dinners, meeting for happy
hour, intramural
flag football, or putting together a faculty–student Akron
Marathon relay team.
In particular, faculty members expect graduate students to direct
their own
efforts, ask pertinent questions, and seek frequent feedback
from their advisors.
Developing strong, high-quality advisor–advisee relationships
can lead to ben-
eficial outcomes such as career development and increased
productivity in the
mentee (Allen, Shockley, & Poteat, 2010). For many students,
advisors not

only provide the obvious opportunities for professional
experience but are a
force for diversifying those experiences by pushing students to
explore multi-
ple research interests and challenging them to think creatively
as they develop
conceptual, methodological, and analytical approaches for
shared projects.
How the UA Way Translates to Diverse Settings
Readers considering how to transfer aspects of the UA model
and culture
to their own academic or applied contexts may find that
providing employ-
ees with autonomy and personal control over information and
decisions at
work is a good place to start. Employee perceptions of personal
control pos-
itively relate to well-being and negatively relate to perceived
workplace stres-
sors (Skinner, 1996; Spector, 2002). Likewise, employee
perceptions of orga-

nizational support for development and perceived career
opportunities are
significant predictors of high job performance and lower
turnover (Kraimer,
Seibert, Wayne, Liden, & Bravo, 2010). These and other works
suggest both
the institution and students (or organization and employees)
mutually benefit
from fostering an environment of support, autonomy, and
encouragement to
seek opportunities for development.
A strong network of open communication in an academic or
work insti-
tution can encourage students and employees to strive for
improvement, par-
ticularly when they are newcomers and face uncertainty.
Finding the right
mix of individual autonomy and cooperative activities can be
difficult, but a
balance is key for helping students or employees to succeed.
The use of feed-
back systems and the promotion of a supportive feedback
environment in

organizations may be effective in encouraging open
communication and
understanding for individuals going through transitions.
Organizations with
strong feedback environments continuously receive and solicit
high-quality
feedback from various sources (London & Smither, 2002). This
is demon-
strated at UA through the constant formal and informal
feedback exchanged
among students, faculty, and peers. The encouragement of such
processes can
give individuals a sense of competence, personal control, and
intrinsic moti-
vation to perform, while also leading to greater role clarity and
understand-
ing of the expectations for performance (Ilgen, Fisher, &
Taylor, 1979). In
addition, a strong feedback culture can promote more satisfied,
committed
individuals who see feedback as valuable to successful
performance in the
organization (Linderbaum & Levy, 2010; London & Smither,
2002), which is

seen in the development of our own first-year students.
Providing such out-
lets for consistent communication and improvements in
understanding can
help smooth transition periods filled with ambiguity for both the
individual
and organization and lead to increased synergy.
In summary, the transitions a first-year graduate student
experiences mark
an exciting and challenging rite of passage for aspiring I-O
psychologists.
Having recently completed this transition, we are thankful for
the supportive
environment created by peers and faculty, appreciative of the
opportunities and
feedback from which we have learned, and grateful for the
collaborative cul-
ture that prepares us to be effective scientists and practitioners.
It is important
to build and maintain strong, supportive relationships, whether
it is between
first-year students and other graduate students, an advisor and
advisee, or fac-
ulty members and students. First-year students should be

proactive in facilitat-
ing this socialization process by developing these relationships
early in their
graduate careers, embracing a learning-goal orientation, and
seeking unique
opportunities for growth outside the classroom. Intertwining
these suggestions
with a collaborative culture, throughout academic and
nonacademic settings,
supports a strong, cohesive, and productive department.
Although every pro-
gram has their own way of easing the first- year transition, the
model here at
UA has been successful and could be extended to other
programs and applied
settings to help newcomer transitions. Applying these methods
in the midst of
novelty and change can have short and long-term benefits for
the development
and achievement of individuals and organizations alike.
The next edition of TIP-TOPics will address the work–life
balance gradu-

ate students face. At UA, students are involved in many
activities beyond
coursework. The next commentary addresses stress and time
management in
graduate school and considers how to maximize the amount of
time a graduate
student can spend on other areas of life beyond academics in
order to obtain an
appropriate balance. If you have any comments, suggestions, or
ideas you
would like to share, feel free to e-mail our team at
[email protected]
Aaron Kraus is a second year MA/PhD student who joined the I-
O psy-
chology program at the University of Akron after receiving his
BA in psy-
chology from Western New England College, in Springfield,
MA. His
research interests include attitudes and behaviors of younger
and older job
seekers, and social networks in personnel selection.
Chantale Wilson is a second year MA/PhD student in the I-O
psychology
program at the University of Akron. She received her BA in
business, psy-

chology, and Spanish from Trinity University in San Antonio,
Texas. Being
born and raised in Singapore has led her main research interests
to include
global I-O and cross-cultural topics, as well as feedback,
performance
appraisal, training, and work–family balance.
References
Allen, T. D., Shockley, K. M., & Poteat, L. (2010). Protégé
anxiety attachment and feedback
in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77,
73–80.
Campion, M. A., & Higgs, A. C. (1995). Design work teams to
increase productivity and
satisfaction. HRMagazine, 40, 101–107.
Cron, W. L., Slocum Jr., J. W., VandeWalle, D., & Fu, Q.
(2005). The role of goal orienta-
tion on negative emotions and goal-setting when initial
performance falls short of one’s per-
formance goal. Human Performance, 18(1), 55–80.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979).
Consequences of individual feedback on

behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,
349–371.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., &
Bravo, J. (2010, November 29).
Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for
development: The critical role of career
opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:
10.1037/a0021452.
Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and
validation of the Feedback
Orientation Scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372–
1405.
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation,
feedback culture, and the lon-
gitudinal performance management process. Human Resource
Management Review, 12, 81–100.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What
newcomers experience in entering
unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 25(2), 226–251.
Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between
individual creativity and

team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25,
235–257.
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal
of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 549–570.
Spector, P. E. (2002). Employee control and occupational stress.
Current Directions in Psy-
chological Science, 11, 133–136.
Thoroughgood, C. (2010). The two-minute elevator speech:
Communicating value and
expertise as I-O psychologists to everyone else. The Industrial
Organizational Psychologist,
48(1), 121–125.
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, Jr., J.
W. (1999). The influence of
goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales
performance: A longitudinal field test. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 249–259.
VandeWalle, D. M. (1996, August). Are our students trying to
prove or improve their abili-
ty? Development and validation of an instrument to measure

academic goal orientation. Paper
presented at the 56th annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Cinicinnati, OH.
Join the fun in
San Diego!
There is so
much to do!
Before or after the
conference, visit SeaWorld, San Diego
Zoo, LEGOLAND California, or the
San Diego Zoo Safari Park.
And don’t miss the beautiful beaches,
shopping, and historic tours!
www.siop.org/conferences
The High Society: Revised Identity Branding The History
Corner: A Brief History on the Tension Between the Science
and Applied Sides of I-O Psychology Good Science-Good
Practice: Coaching Practice Perspectives: Is SIOP Inclusive? A
Review of the Membership Comp
osition of Fellows, Awards, Appointments, and Volunteer
Committees On the Legal Front: Understanding Grant v. Metro:
Wards Cove Reloaded?

Practitioners' Forum: The Intersection of Technology
andScience: Perspectives on Drivers of Innovation in I-O
Practice
Max Classroom Capacity
The Academics' Forum: I-O Rodeo,
Anyone?TIP-TOPics: Making the Transition: Insight From
Second-Year Graduate Students
Pro-Social I-O - Quo Vadis?
Project Organizational Gini CoefficientFoundation Spotlight:
SIOP Foundation Named Awards,Grants, and Fellowships
1
RUNNING HEAD: PROFESSIONAL ISSUES –FINAL PAPER
5
PROFESSIONAL ISSUES –FINAL PAPER
The Future of Industrial Organizational Psychology
“What is Industrial Organizational Psychology?” That is a
question I wish I would have confronted in my earlier years of
school, perhaps even elementary school. It makes me ponder
that at a young age, one grows up learning about professions
like firefighters, lawyers, teachers, and psychologists, but many
individuals including myself, grow up thinking psychology is a
field fully devoted to treating or counseling patients. About a
month ago, I was getting my haircut at a salon, and my hair
dresser asked me what I studied in school. I briefly shared that I
studied a branch of psychology that applies theories and
principles of psychology in the workplace to make organizations
more efficient. She replied by saying, “what is something you
would tell me if I were your patient?” Clearly, my hairdresser

did not understand what I explained. It seems common that
individuals are not educated on the diverse fields of
psychology. Gerard (2014) states that IO psychologists suffer
from an identity crisis because there is a lack of visibility of the
contributions and services we provide as field. Rather than
viewing IO psychology as “the application of psychology to
issues of critical relevance to business”, as the SIOP homepage
states, IO psychologists should target issues relevant to workers
and the broader society (Gerard, 2014) (pg. 41). It brings me to
address the question, “How can the field of IO psychology
prosper?” I propose that educating novices about IO psychology
should start as early as possible. You might be thinking, how
are small children going to learn about IO psychology? My
response: “The same way they learn how to convert feet into
centimeters. It is not enough to advertise IO psychology, it is
about normalizing it and educating individuals about what is it
that we do and what it is that we stand for. If we can get young
scholars to learn that there is a profession out there that
maximizes the workplace and makes employees happier, the
same way they understand what lawyers do and why they do it,
it will normalize the field of IO psychology. However, it brings
me to address another important consideration, that is, IO
psychologists who wish to spread awareness of their profession
must consider their audience. Wilson and Kraus (2012)
introduces the concept of a “2-minute elevator speech”
suggesting that having a definition that connects with the
audience is important. In other words, as an educator of IO
psychology, you must speak the language of the audience and
explain it using terms or concepts they understand. Likewise, I
suggest that it is not impossible to start educating novices at a
young age that there is a profession out there that is dedicated
to helping improve lives in the workplace. In return, this will
create awareness and outreach for our services.
Furthermore, I propose the field of IO psychology should
influence industries outside higher education or business. I
believe that IO psychology could have a great influence in

schools because there are many professions involved in the
school system. Children have parents who are doctors, nurses,
contractors, skilled laborers, entrepreneurs etc. All these
professions could benefit from services of IO psychology. Since
schools often provide resources and programs for parents, it
would be beneficial for schools to incorporate programs that
help educate parents on how IO psychology can impact their
organizations. Koppes (2003) suggests that psychology should
be taken outside of academia and increase “research on practical
applications in education, medicine, criminology…” (p.374). By
influencing many industries, IO psychology is able impact
several lives outside of academia and business. Resultantly, it
will grant IO psychologists the opportunity to influence and
impact many professions.
Another suggestion for the future of IO psychology is to
continue integrating both science and practice in both business
and academia. IO psychology is able to make its full
contribution to academia and the business world when science
and practice converge (Rucci, 2008). Therefore, IO
psychologists should be both generators and consumers of
knowledge (SIOP, 2016). Today, IO psychology is more
influential in academia, however, the goal for IO psychologists
should be to impact the business world as well. According to
the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychologists (SIOP),
in 2011, fellow designations for academic and research (91%)
dominated practitioner representation (9%). In addition, 84% of
SIOP recognitions are awarded to academic/researchers. (Silzer
& Parson, 2012). This reveals that there is a disconnect between
researchers and practitioners. SIOP must value the contributions
from both academia and practitioners. Effective ways to close
the scientist-practitioner gap is by appealing to the business
community and acknowledging what they value; IO
psychologists need to be aware that an organization’s financial
performance are valid outcome measures of their success. It is
only when organizations are successful, that they are able
provide better opportunities and resources for their employees

(Rucci, 2008). In addition, Erickson et al. (2009) provided many
suggestions to help close the gap between scientists and
practitioners. For example, he suggested that SIOP should
become the leading source of the business community, IO
psychology journals should publish in popular HR and business
journals, IO psychologists should attend popular business
conventions and conferences, and create joint conferences to
help collaborate and integrate both professions. By closing the
scientist-practitioner gap, practitioners can create meaningful
changes in their organizations based on the current research
literature. However, in order for practitioners to apply the
research literature to their organizations, scientists must create
meaningful studies that apply to real world settings,
relationships, and various types of organizations.
In conclusion, I proposed several ideas for the future of IO
psychology. When educating novices about the field, it is
important to take into consideration the audience in which you
are speaking to. It is important to mentally note that IO
psychologists suffer from an identity crisis, so it is crucial to
find effective ways of communicating our profession.
Furthermore, I propose the field of IO psychology should
expand into industries aside from business and academia.
Lastly, I propose the field of IO psychology should continue to
close the gap between scientists and practitioners, because as a
profession, we are able to make our full contribution when we
use research literature to make important decisions that affect
several lives.
References
Erickson, A., Silzer, R., Robinson, G., Rich, C. (2009).
Promoting Industrial-Organizational Psychology. Practice
Perspectives. 46 (4).
Gerard, N. (2014). Confronting the Real Identity Crisis.
Teachers College, Colombia University. 51 (4).
Koppes, L. L. (2003). Industrial-Organizational Psychology. 18.
Rucci, A. J. (2008). I-O Psychology’s “Core Purpose”: Where

Science and Practice Meet. Fisher College of Business, Ohio
State University. 46 (1).
Silzer, R., Parson, C. (2012). Is SIOP Inclusive? A Review of
the Membership Composition of Fellows, Awards,
Appointments, and Volunteer Committees. Practice
Perspectives. 49 (3).
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc.
(2016). Guidelines for education and training in
industrial/organizational psychology.Bowling Green, OH:
Author
Wilson, C. N., Kraus, A. J. (2012). Making the Transition:
Insight from Second-Year Graduate Students. Tip-Topics. 49
(3).
The Future of I-O Psychology
Practice, Part 2:
What Can I-O Practitioners Do?
Rob Silzer
HR Assessment and Development Inc./Baruch College, CUNY
Rich Cober
Marriott International
In order to better understand the evolution and future direction
of I-O psy-

chology practice, a brief survey on the future of I-O psychology
practice was
sent to a small but diverse sample of 80 I-O practitioners (1Qtr,
2010). Com-
pleted surveys were received from 50 leading I-O practitioners,
including 20
SIOP Fellows. This survey was a follow up to the SIOP
Practitioner Needs Sur-
vey (Silzer, Cober, Erickson, & Robinson, 2008). Our survey
team was interest-
ed in finding out how I-O psychologists saw the future of I-O
psychology prac-
tice and in gathering suggestions on what I-O practitioners and
SIOP can do to
further facilitate I-O practice. The survey contained three open-
ended questions.
Based on your own experience and insight, and thinking ahead
to the next
10–20 years of I-O psychology practice:
1. What are the three most likely future directions for I-O
psychology
practice? (Results were reported in Silzer & Cober, 2010)
2. What are the three most important activities that I-O
practitioners can

do in the future to contribute to organizational and individual
effectiveness?
3. What are three steps that SIOP could take to facilitate I-O
psychology
practice in the future?
This article reports additional results from the recent I-O
Practitioner Sur-
vey and is an extension of the recent TIP article “The Future of
I-O Psychol-
ogy Practice, Part 1” (Silzer & Cober, 2010).
Question 2: What I-O Practitioners Can Do
In this article we focus on the responses to the second question:
What are
the three most important activities that I-O practitioners can do
in the future
to contribute to organizational and individual effectiveness?
We received 148 comments in response to this question (on
average 2.96
comments per respondent) and sorted them into 11 categories
emerging from
the data (see Table 1). The top four categories for this question
account for

51% of the responses (n = 76).
Below is a representative sample of the responses we received.
1. Promote the field through communication and education
• Promote our field, better communicate.
• Increase visibility so that corporate leaders understand how
we can
contribute.
• Raise the visibility of I-O in the real world.
• Help organizations integrate talent management into the
fundamental
business processes.
• Change the way we communicate our science as individuals
and as
a field.
• Champion the importance and value of human capital
management
as a key business strategy.
• Translate and package I-O knowledge and scientific findings
in
accessible forms that match the interests, needs, and language

of
workers and leaders. We seem to leave this to folks like
Gladwell,
Goleman, and Pink.
Table 1
Response Categories for Question 2—What I-O Practitioners
Can Do to
Contribute to Organizational and Individual Effectiveness
Response category Number of responses
1. Promote the field 21
Promote our field, better communicate
Educate clients, business community and public
2. Expand practice 20
Expand practice
Broaden to other roles
3. Broaden skills 18
Develop additional skills
Build and maintain technical skills
4. Focus in specific issues 17
5. Stay current on research and practice 15
Stay current in the field
Stay grounded in research

6. Improve education and development 12
Change graduate training
Strengthen own education and development
Learn from others
7. Learn about clients and business 11
8. Be professionally active 10
Be professionally active
Share practitioner knowledge
Publish/write
9. Improve tools and procedures 8
10. Measure and communicate business outcomes 8
11. Connect research and practice 8
• We should be the translators of our research. We should be the
ones
making our research understandable, relevant, and practical to
busi-
ness. Translating our research more effectively would benefit
prac-
titioners and SIOP by:
• Ensuring that our research is translated accurately.
• Increasing the visibility of the profession.
• Opening the door to more practitioner work and more
academic

research opportunities.
• Enabling more organizations to benefit from what we do.
• Educate clients, business community, and public.
• Educate organizational leaders about I-O solutions that
contribute
to organizational effectiveness.
• Capitalize on opportunities, through our work, to educate the
busi-
ness community AND the public at large about who we are as a
pro-
fession, how we differ from others who do related things (e.g.,
cli-
nicians, HR, MBA, etc.), and the value we bring to
organizations.
This could increase the reach of our field and its impact on
individ-
uals, teams, and organizations.
• Share best practices, experience, and practical solutions in
open
forums and through multiple media to ensure that needed
informa-
tion and tools get into the hands of decision makers.

• Mainstream I-O practices, tools, and resources throughout the
organ-
ization and follow the “teach a man to fish” philosophy whereby
clients are taught to their level of interest and capability to
carry out
activities that will ensure rigor and ethics in talent management.
• Improve management training regarding human resources,
includ-
ing a stronger focus on engagement and creating a workplace
that
fosters engagement that focuses on organizational outcomes.
• Develop better communications to senior management on the
impact and value of the science we can bring to bear on
problems
while moving them away from the perception that everyone is
an
expert when it comes to HR.
• Be explicit about how supporting and engaging individuals/
employees can contribute to organizational effectiveness.
• Encourage scientific thinking among our clients.
• Keep businesses and organizations attentive to behavioral
science

knowledge.
• Help HR professionals understand and utilize
statistics/analyses to
drive decisions.
• Educate clients/colleagues about the utility of our assessment
expertise.
HR generalists, managers, and executives do not see us equally
able to
contribute to prehire, promotional, and succession decisions.
• Educate the future leaders in business schools (i.e., MBA and
exec-
utive ed students) on how to apply I-O knowledge and evidence-
based solutions to manage and develop talent. Executives have
always said that managing people is one of the hardest things
they
do, but we haven’t done a good job of teaching them how to do
that.
They still have little clue that we have a lot of knowledge and
pow-

erful tools that can equip them to do it better.
• Seek opportunities to demonstrate value in nontraditional
organiza-
tions and settings of high societal visibility/impact.
• Influence laws, regulations, and enforcement agencies so that
our best
knowledge is incorporated into public discourse about topics
within our
expertise. Opportunities for influence extend well beyond
traditional
selection and equal opportunity discussions (e.g., managing
older
workers, operating effective and healthy organizations, and
enhancing
privacy perceptions are a few areas where we can contribute).
2. Expand practice
• Expand practice.
• Broaden views of “best fit” (i.e., consider other individual
differ-
ences beside cognitive abilities/personality attributes; link
personal
characteristics to organizational dynamics, etc.) and integrate
both

the I and O indices/metrics.
• Link your work to organizational sustainability. Sustainability
for
the environment and for leadership continuity gives our
profession
real impact in the world.
• Become more global in our thinking...from both research and
prac-
tice perspectives. We need more data on global leadership
effec-
tiveness/measurement.
• Help organizations identify where to selectively invest in
talent
development.
• Connect the dots...find ways to integrate efforts.
• Look at interplay of macro- and microlevel aspects of
workforce.
• Branch out into all aspects of HR, including less traditional
areas
(i.e. compensation, labor relations, etc.).
• Learn more about how companies can manage and lead across
geo-

graphic/cultural lines and help organizations do this. Virtual
organ-
izations that rely on technological communication rather than
face-
to-face meetings will become common, and we need to develop
rel-
evant leadership models for this.
• Give more attention to life cycles of individuals and
organizations,
what works at different points in an individual’s career or life
cycle,
and how an organization’s life cycle influences its operation
and
effective interventions.
• Leverage our role in organizations to support organizational
growth
in the next 10 years as developing nations continue their
evolution
into American-like economies.
• Be a good business partner, so I-O practitioners are business
con-

sultants as well as HR consultants.
• Become better business leaders and explain how the scientific
approach is superior to the schlock out there.
• Go outside of your comfort zone and work on real applied
organi-
zational problems not just what other I-Os are doing.
• Address the challenges of changing demographics around the
world.
• Branch out beyond HR and talent management functions;
spend
time in functions where we need to leverage our training and
insight
on novel issues, e.g., the evolving nature of health care
practice/
organizations or environmental health and safety awareness.
• Help companies avoid increasingly hostile government
regulators.
• Broaden to other roles.
• I-Os will increasingly occupy leadership and policy roles
inside HR
departments.

• More I-Os (PhD and MS level) will be in HR roles, not pure I-
O roles.
3. Broaden skills
• Develop additional skills.
• Expand involvement in executive coaching, selection, and
develop-
ment activities.
• Develop and maintain our supporting nontechnical skill set
(e.g.,
group facilitation, project management, client management
skills).
• Give greater attention to speaking to organizations in their
own ver-
nacular. Develop and implement practical models for the “real
world” and deal with actual organizational complexities.
Realize
the limits of reductionist models. Learn to articulate the limits/
boundaries of our research (when it applies, when it doesn’t,
and
under what circumstances).
• Drive focus on accountabilities of individuals around their
per-

formance and growth.
• Improve our communication and influencing skills. If we can’t
com-
municate in ways that get people’s attention, the profession
suffers
and we fail to achieve the benefits of what the profession can
offer.
• Make an effort to understand diverse audiences, their
perspective,
and their needs/issues. Communicating information in ways that
are
meaningful to THEM is a critical skill that many practitioners
either
don’t know how to do OR don’t want to take the time to do.
• It is frustrating that others outside of our field often get a lot
of vis-
ibility and have more impact in organizations than we do. Why?
Because they communicate our research better than we do (e.g.,
Malcolm Gladwell [Blink], Dan Pink [Drive], even SHRM
trans-
lates info from our journals into more understandable, user
friendly

info for its members).
• Learn better influencing strategies to convince organizations
of the
benefits of applying our science.
• Become far more effective in having marketable skills—i.e.,
read-
ing financial reports, delivering effective communications,
interact-
ing with senior-level managers and boards.
• Understand how individuals learn and change with an
emphasis on
recent research in neuropsychology.
• Gain a broader understanding of leadership
mindsets/frameworks,
how they are formed, and how they are changed and developed;
collectively become more skilled at iterating changes of
organiza-
tions and individuals.
• Continue to build expertise in leadership development via job
expe-

riences domain. HR people lack knowledge and expertise to
lever-
age our collective understanding and insights.
• Develop a global mind set and hone their CQ (cultural
intelligence).
Expose ourselves more to different cultures, different
organization-
al conditions in different countries, and learn from our global
col-
leagues.
• Have enough backbone to develop a point of view about what
you
do—just be sure the research and experience back it up.
• Build and maintain technical skills.
• Maintain technical expertise to take advantage of and
contribute to
advances in our applied science (e.g., measurement of
performance,
selection testing).
• Pursue continuing education that deepens our knowledge and
judg-
ment about appropriate and effective applications of I-O

research
findings/tools/instruments/methodologies.
• Maintain and adapt methodological skills for less than ideal
prob-
lems; case studies of nontraditional I-O applications. Adapt to
an
increasingly virtual, global world that maintains processes
through
the Internet and includes many different organizations.
4. Focus on specific issues
• Promote the integration of organizational and individual
development
strategies.
• Assist organizations in selecting, training/developing,
promoting, and
engaging individuals that are “best fit” at all levels (entry to
senior
manager).
• Coach senior management to more effectively lead.
• Support coaching and individual effectiveness.
• Use workforce and strategic planning to help organizations
adapt to

changes.
• The U.S. is lagging in innovation and creativity, our former
competitive
advantage. Mount an effort to understand and develop
recommenda-
tions on how to bring innovation back into the workplace.
• Promote the use of workforce analytics and related
technologies.
• Focus on alternative selection procedures to improve and
validate ques-
tionable ones (e.g., resumé screening, unproctored testing) and
to
reduce reliance on single measure cognitive ability tests and the
result-
ing adverse impact.
• Aggressively research assessment use across the globe.
Understand
item types and which are more or less prone to cultural impact.
• Pursue change management.

• Utilize organizational design/redesign.
• Become experts on creating versatile/easily redeployed talent.
• Learn more about different types of organizations and what
makes
them work (e.g., from the very complex IBM matrix to small
micro-
credit Indian firms). Broaden our understanding of
organizational
effectiveness to the new emerging forms of organizations.
• Conduct employee, team, and organizational adaptability
research.
• Focus on skill development, behaviors, and motivation that are
under
employee’s control and can be developed, instead of traits,
(e.g., we are
now talking about trait-learning orientation—how ironic is
that?).
• Pursue leadership development research.
5. Stay current on research and practice
• Stay current in the field
• Learn more about practice-related research! We need to have
easy

access to volumes of literature, sorted by topic and summarized
in eas-
ily digested form. Getting access to research journals and
scientific
information is difficult for most practitioners; they have to
overcome
significant hurdles to catch up on the latest research knowledge.
Once
access is provided, then practitioners should take full advantage
of it!
• Communicate with researchers on what is needed to better
under-
stand real-world settings. Stimulate research that will have
practical
usefulness to practitioners. If more research is created, more of
what I-Os do will be guided by science.
• Help grow our research base. For example, hook up with
academ-
ics who are actively doing research in areas relevant to our
practice
work. Help them understand the tough questions we are
addressing
and where we lack research to guide us. To the extent possible,
col-

laborate on research.
• Better leverage our strong advantage as scientists (e.g., we
know
how to measure and shape behavior) while still speaking the
lan-
guage of our ultimate “customers.” There is a great divide
between
academicians and practitioners—how do we appreciate each
other
better and help each other become even more productive and
effec-
tive? Supporting the “science you can use” idea, Kurt’s wiki
idea,
and so forth seem to be steps in the right direction.
• Stay current, connected, and active with the field and research
being
produced. Many practitioners (not all) land on their favorite
model/
approach/tool and stop connecting to the new ideas, concepts,
and

work being produced (they also stop coming to SIOP as we
know).
Ultimately they get stale and less relevant to their organization
as
they mature as professionals, which ironically is when their
poten-
tial contribution increases.
• Tap into the available data; take advantage of opportunities
given
by it to explore, investigate, and test hypotheses about people
and
behavior in organizations and use it to contribute to both
individual
and organizational outcomes.
• Stay involved with other professionals to push oneself to stay
up on
matters, science, and knowledge.
• Support practice with evidence.
• Stay grounded in research
• Show how science underlies organizational performance and
lead-
ership effectiveness.

• Promote fact-based/data-driven decision making on all people
fronts
(e.g., selection, assessment, leading, measuring change;
surveys,
employee engagement, development focus, and expected
returns, etc.).
• Use applied R&D (e.g., job analysis, test development,
validation)
to support organizational needs. Be cognizant of organizational
realities without sacrificing technical quality.
• Realize the limits of reductionist models. Learn to articulate
the
limits of our research (when it applies, when it doesn’t, and
under
what circumstances).
• Monitor the focus on “evidence-based” practice so that it
continues
to involve professional judgment and does not become merely
for-
mulaic and reductionistic.
• As it was in the beginning it shall continue to be in the future:
The
scientist–practitioner (or evidence-based) approach is the key

towards ensuring organizational and individual effectiveness
across
our practice areas.
• Keep practice work grounded in I-O research as much as
possible.
(e.g., if you are working in leadership development, stay current
on
research on executive assessment, leadership theory, learning
from
experience, etc.).
• Stay true to research principles, the profession, and APA
ethical
principles.
6. Improve education and development
• Change graduate training
• Take a hard look at what is missing in graduate training and
fill in
the gaps. For example, if I-O psychologists are going to
continue to
pursue coaching, we need to be learning more from our clinical
brethren. If we expect to consult with those in the upper
echelons of

corporations, we need to require more business coursework
related
to topics such as strategy. How do we better prepare our
students for
the nonacademic/content side of their work: networking,
managing
projects, political savvy, and so on?
• Are the online I-O professional schools training students to
the
same standards as traditional brick and mortar schools? Or
maybe
traditional schools have a lot to learn from these new up and
com-
ing programs.
• Ensure every I-O psychology graduate program has strong
practi-
tioner representation on the faculty (perhaps as adjunct faculty
members). They are critical to bringing balance and real-world
understanding to I-O graduate education.

• Strengthen own education and development.
• Support high-quality, relevant, practical continuing education
and
development. Support practitioners as we try to learn, hone
skills,
and compliment our learning in every day work with available
research. SIOP might offer study groups that “meet” 4–6 times
annually to discuss assigned readings, hear from experts, and so
on.
with tracks on leadership development, succession planning,
coach-
ing, team development, and so forth. SIOP could offer
executive-
track training in specialty areas (equivalent to executive MBA
or
certification programs). This is most pressing in coaching
because
there are other bodies out there doing this for non I-Os but it
could
be done in many areas. A SIOP mentoring program would be
nice
too—perhaps to participate you have to mentor and be
mentored?

• Raise awareness of the psychological principals of behavior,
thought, and affect and their importance at work. Strategically,
this
is our most unique and defensible domain. Anyone who has
worked
with individuals in the workplace knows that our field is stat
heavy
and psych light.
• Don’t stop “going to school.”
• Learn all you can about other applicable areas of psychology
and
participate in multidisciplinary teams to bring the best to
organiza-
tional clients.
• Expand our professional curriculum to include business,
quality
improvement, and organizational consulting skills, even in
graduate
school; this is an important complement to current professional
development. Cross training might also include consumer
psychol-
ogy and customer experience dynamics.

• SIOP should offer webinars on topics. Get outstanding
presenters
who know the research and who can translate it so it is useful
and rel-
evant to practitioners. SIOP could get really good speakers for
much
lower rates than if this were done for pure marketing; but SIOP
would
need to come out of the gate strong in order to make it work.
• Learn from others.
• Recognize, admit, and address what we don’t know and take
action
on that info. Seek out more opportunities to learn from, AND
col-
laborate with, colleagues in other parts of our profession AND
out-
side our field. Recognize that we can’t/don’t know it all. If we
real-
ly care about the quality of the end product, we need to learn
from
and work with others. The global nature of work and the

complex-
ity of business challenges we face make this important.
• Embrace those in other disciplines.
• Stay current enough in all relevant domains of I-O.
7. Learn about clients and business
• Understand business (how organizations make money, how to
read a
balance sheet, etc.).
• Better understand business challenges from the viewpoint of
exec-
utives and entrepreneurs.
• Understand the business context we operate in. Learn enough
about
marketing, finance, R&D, operations, and so on, to be credible
in
business discussions. Learn how to draw connections between
the
HR/ I-O work we are doing and business outcomes.
• Learn how companies make money! If we don’t, then we
cannot
contribute in ways that key decision makers support. Consultant

practitioners will always practice at the mercy of executive
spon-
sors and discretionary funding. Similarly, understand how non-
profits deliver on their mission! Otherwise I-O psychologists
will
continue to be operating along the fringe of organizations.
• Get business experience; take business/financial courses.
• Enhance our understanding of the business (operations,
language,
financials) so we are not seen purely as technicians but also as
busi-
ness partners. Many executive coaches that are popping up are
suc-
cessful because they are former executives who speak the
language
and understand the business dynamics. Many I-O folks are too
deep
in their technical expertise and never see above the tree (let
alone
forest) in front of them.
• Learn business models and understand the pragmatics of
culture
and organizational politics.

• Find ways to get many on-the-job learning experiences to
under-
stand the business of clients.
• Actively read and participate in the business literature.
• Understand and address what executives need to make their
organ-
izations successful.
8. Be professionally active
• Be professionally active.
• Be professionally active and visible. A broad base of
stakeholders, con-
stituents, and partners need to be aware of the value we bring to
work-
place issues. Continue to refine our public “brand” as
professionals.
• Participate in SIOP. I continue to be surprised at the number
of I-O
folks I meet who haven’t maintained their membership or
attended

a conference in ages. Staying current in the field is job one for
con-
tributing.
• Insure that we have a clear idea of who we are, how we differ
from
others, and the value we bring.
• Get licensed as a psychologist and support others who want to
define and defend the field.
• Coalesce around a single job title (e.g., I-O psychologist).
• Share practitioner knowledge.
• One challenge is that practitioners typically realize value via
pro-
prietary services, trademarks or patents, whereas academics
realize
value via publications. Publications are safe as they multiply (as
oppose to dilute) “share value.” Practitioners need to find ways
to
profitably share their knowledge and experience in a world
where
we are predominantly rewarded (or even required) for not
sharing.
Clinicians have figured it out.

• Support and contribute to I-O practitioner literature.
• Publish/write.
• Do more writing about the issues we face and the solutions we
use
to address them.
• Publish more, especially in practitioner outlets, even if “2nd
tier”
and nonrefereed.
• Publish/present experiences and case studies. Leverage
opportunities
to do so (e.g., the I-O Perspectives journal, Consulting
Psychology
Journal, and the SIOP conference practitioner forums).
Practitioners
have a lot to offer in making strong theory work in the field.
9. Improve tools and procedures
• Integrate with technology.
• Learn how to integrate organizational psychology practice
with
technology (e.g., build own understanding of technology,
influence

specifications of HR software systems, or partner with software
companies).
• Emphasize technology more to administer more efficient and
cost-
effective programs.
• Develop new processes.
• Challenge old paradigms. Get real and recognize that by using
the
same methods and designs, we will see limits on the sacred
criteri-
on-related validity coefficient and actually see it go down as
work
becomes an even more complex construct.
• Put a “D” on the back of our strong “R” friends in academia to
make us relevant to people besides other I-Os. (How interesting/
diverse, really, is the attendance at SIOP conferences?)
Research is
nice but incomplete without development of new, ALLURING,
and
DIRECTLY RELEVANT tools and systems. Provide real input
and

feedback on the efficacy and relevance of I-O research to guide
and
launch new processes/tools.
• Develop legally defensible selection procedures in a shorter
period
of time. Maybe we can work together to streamline the process.
• Provide fully integrated solutions.
• For I-O internal consultants (e.g., in a Center of Excellence) it
is crit-
ical to partner with other HR functions and COEs (i.e., talent
man-
agement, selection/assessment, organizational learning, staffing,
diversity, performance management, etc.) to create and
communicate
an integrated strategy, vision, and tactical game plan for
attracting,
developing, and retaining talent. Line leaders see these efforts
as a
collective talent-focused imperative not as distinct functions or
processes (the way it may be perceived within HR). We need to
get

really good at marketing and communicating a fully integrated
solu-
tion so line leaders feel they have the tools and support they
need.
• Help CEOs see the big picture of how different HR activities
fit
together.
• Save good products and services.
• Not sure this is feasible but someone might find a workable
solu-
tion: Create a “safe deposit box” for I-O products that
companies
discard. The contents would still be there when the company
regains its senses. Another alternative (perhaps challenging to
get
past the attorneys) would be to create a donation center where
the
products/services could be deposited after the company identity
was stripped off. I hate to see good stuff tossed and then
recreated.
10. Measure and communicate business outcomes
• Use metrics to demonstrate ROI and connect to strategy. More

overtly
pursue and balance the trio of values of supporting the
organization,
supporting science, and supporting the individual.
• Improve the way we conduct and communicate the business
case and
ROI for the work we do. There is increasing demand for us to
demon-
strate a solid business case for all our work. The challenge is
that the
methodology, metrics, and data for doing classic utility analysis
are not
useful for communicating to line leaders. We need to find a
better, eas-
ier way to make our case and communicate it to executives.
• Help CEOs focus on measureable bottom-line results.
• Tie our research to business outcomes. Profit is no more a
dirty word
than is salary. We do need to get over this.
• Continue to look at impact on business outcomes, including
human val-
ues and citizenship.

• Understand how groups/organizations get things done (or not)
and what
are the practices that drive effectiveness.
• Align our work with the business strategy.
• Measure not only the validity but also the impact/value of
what we do
(and the tools/solutions we develop) on the profitability,
productivity,
health and well-being, and long-term success of organizations.
11. Connect research and practice
• Build stronger connections between practitioners and
scientists.
• Reduce the animosity between academics and practitioners.
Practition-
ers are not stupid, and academics do have good ideas. We need
to start
working together and understand the limitations that each of us
face.
• Better bridge the scientist–practitioner gap so that the
academic side

is producing research that practitioners can actually leverage
with
their clients. Organizations like Gallup, CLC, or Hewitt have a
tremendous business impact when they release research (even if
it
is of questionable quality), while the really good content in
Person-
nel Psychology is so technical that you could never give a copy
to
a manager and have them understand it. We need more
translation
vehicles (e.g., the Professional Practice Series is pretty good in
this
regard) and research that is directed at more relevant topics.
• Keep the scientist–practitioner model working—an integrated
and
focused approach.
• Enhance the link between research and practice (strengthen
our evi-
dence-based practices).
• Encourage more collaboration between research and practice.
• Influence researchers to do meaningful practice-oriented
research.

24 April 2016, Volume 53, Number 4We Feel a Change Comin’ .docx

24 April 2016, Volume 53, Number 4We Feel a Change Comin’ .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 24 April 2016, Volume 53, Number 4We Feel a Change Comin’ .docx

Similar to 24 April 2016, Volume 53, Number 4We Feel a Change Comin’ .docx (15)

More from tamicawaysmith

More from tamicawaysmith (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

24 April 2016, Volume 53, Number 4We Feel a Change Comin’ .docx